Computer technology in modern music - CORE

California State University, Monterey Bay California State University, Monterey Bay

Digital Commons @ CSUMB Digital Commons @ CSUMB

Capstone Projects and Master's Theses

2013

Computer technology in modern music : a study of current tools Computer technology in modern music : a study of current tools

and how musicians use them and how musicians use them

Garrett Bevins California State University, Monterey Bay

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Bevins, Garrett, "Computer technology in modern music : a study of current tools and how musicians use them" (2013). Capstone Projects and Master's Theses. 367. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes/367

This Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstone Projects and Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. Unless otherwise indicated, this project was conducted as practicum not subject to IRB review but conducted in keeping with applicable regulatory guidance for training purposes. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/

https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes

https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes?utm_source=digitalcommons.csumb.edu%2Fcaps_thes%2F367&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes/367?utm_source=digitalcommons.csumb.edu%2Fcaps_thes%2F367&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Computer Technology In Modern Music:

A Study of Current Tools and How Musicians Use Them

Garrett Bevins

California State University Monterey Bay

Author Note

Garrett Bevins, Music And Performing Arts Department, California State University

Monterey Bay

Correspondence concerning this article contact: [email protected]

Computer Technology In Modern Music 2

Abstract

This paper presents a range of information about technology in music and

examines how computer-based musicians are implementing this technology. The first

part considers how the compositional framework of author, audience, and purpose applies

to these musicians. The second part examines the crucial hardware and software tools

that combine in these systems to work as a singular rig and instrument. The paper also

covers some musical aspects of computer-based music projects, including mixing. The

final element discusses advancements of virtual tools, and how they are surpassing the

capabilities of hardware gear. Much of the research presented comes first hand from

successful musicians who use computers as central components of their workflows, and

is based, in part, on an internet survey conducted by the author.


Computer Technology in Modern Music: A Study of Current Tools and How

Musicians Use Them

Technological advancements are having a profound effect on how modern music

is being created and performed. In recent years, the so-called “computer revolution” has

spurred new, powerful capabilities for musicians. Computer-based musicians are in

many cases using their personal computer as the central component for the composition,

performance, recording, mixing, mastering and performance of their music. Trends

indicate that this computer technology will continue to grow in popularity amongst

musicians, both professionals and hobbyists. This research project is a study of modern

computer based musicians, focusing on compositional elements. The author will begin

by introducing the widespread concepts of author, audience, and purpose, and will then

describe how understanding the theory is especially relevant in this context. From there

the paper will dive into the tools popularly used and sometimes required for computer-

based composition, and how they work together. Then, it will briefly address some

musical elements of computer-based music projects, which includes mixing. Lastly,

findings are revealed about major advancements with software components of computer

music systems. Computers have a significant impact on modern music; this analytical

paper breaks down various aspects of what goes into using computers to create music and

showcases some of their capabilities.

Author, Audience, Purpose

When a the composer reflects upon whom they are as a musician, who the

intended audience is, and the reaction the musician intends the audience to have when


they consume the music can make a creation most effective. When thought of in terms as

author, audience and purpose, the musical journey begins with a valuable mindset. These

concepts are applicable to all musicians, but especially important for computer-based

musicians because of their the ability to singularly program sounds of virtually any

instrument or soundscape. Knowing how to channel and embody a fitting style or sound

is crucial.

A first objective is to begin an analysis to understand who the creator is as an

artist, (author). In this musical context, the focus will be on cultural upbringing (with an

emphasis on the musical aspect of culture) and musical background. In an article

published by the Northwestern University Press entitled, “The Anthropology of Music,”

ethnomusicologist Alan P. Merriam depicts the relationship between cultural upbringing

and how the upbringing works with musicians specifically stating,

“It is through education, enculturation, cultural learning, that culture gains its

stability and is perpetuated, but it is through the same process of cultural learning

that change takes place and culture derives its dynamic quality. What is true for

culture as a whole is also true for music; the learning process in music is at the

core of our understanding of the sounds men produce” (Merriam, 1964).

Here Merriam suggests that music had listened to by musicians in their past

(perhaps grow up listening to) and the music they choose to listen to on a daily basis will

influence music that they create and contribute to their cultural identities. Giving thought

to and reflecting upon our lifelong collections of taste, acquired by intellectual and


aesthetic training (seemingly conscious and subconscious), can be a great starting point

for computer music composition.

Prior musical training is another vital element to the music creator's identity and

will sculpt the quality and flavor of a musician’s computer-based composition. Though

having experience playing an instrument is not required to create successful computer

based music, there is no doubt that having a great understandings of advanced musical

elements is valuable. In “The Digital Musician.” Andrew Hugill breaks musical

backgrounds up into three types: pitch orientation, rhythmic orientation and timbre

orientation.

The first background Hugill identifies is pitch orientation. Types of instruments

in this category would be example instrument groups like strings, brass, woodwind, and

voice. Here, notes can create expressive melodies and blend to create lush, colorful

harmonies. Hugill makes a connection between pitch orientation and classical training or

certain genres when stating,

“Many musicians who knowingly work within highly established traditions, such

as ‘classical’ music and certain forms of ‘folk’ music take pitch as a starting point

for their musical training. These musicians generally play an acoustic instrument

as their main practice, and they travel a prescribed career path that involves the

gradual evolution of technique and musicianship” (Hugill, 2012).

This identifies one type of musical background that would have a great effect on

someone’s musical identity. For example, if someone were to have played trumpet in an

orchestra before starting to compose music on a computer, they may have an inherent


tendency to program a lead melody before a drum rhythm or even a chord progression.

One significant genre that Hugill did not include in this excerpt is jazz music, which often

develops an instrumentalist's ability to improvise and solo.

Another type of musician who possesses a different musical understanding is a

rhythmically oriented musician. Rhythm is the focus of many genres around the world,

especially those often accompanied by dance. Hugill relates rhythmically oriented

musicians to pitch oriented musicians with the claim,

“Another type of musician may begin with rhythm, or at least beat. This includes

rock and most forms of popular music. Musicians working within this tradition

tend to show a relative lack of interest in pitch when compared to the first type,

although of course they do not ignore it completely” (Hugill, 2012).

Recognizing that rhythm is a vital component of most popular music has merit. A

lot of computer-based music, in particular, tends to have a strong emphasis on rhythmic

elements. These rhythmically oriented musicians often have a better sense of how to

make the different parts of their music better groove together. This all suggests that

musicians of this orientation would be best suited to focus on how their parts align

rhythmically.

The third type of orientation that Hugill identifies is less obvious, a timbre

oriented musician. Timbre is commonly referred to as tone, which is comprised of a

sound's spectrum and envelope. These factors determine qualities like the sonic color,

and they make sounds distinguishable between different instruments. Musicians who are

able to create pleasing timbres stand at an advantage. It certainly doesn't mean that pitch


or rhythmic orientated musicians cannot create fantastic timbres, but rather it is true that

some people have inherent abilities to sculpt amazing sounds, even without extraordinary

performance skills. Hugill identifies these musicians and makes a claim,

“A third tradition starts from timbre. This type of musician is harder to pin down,

for the simple reason that timbre-focused artists do not consider themselves to be

musicians at all, or do not use the word ‘music’ to describe what they produce.”

He goes on to say, “By dealing with sounds rather than notes, these musicians

have changed the nature of music itself, raising questions about what is ‘musical”

(Hugill, 2012).

It is important to realize the significance of being able to create pleasing and

interesting sounds. Sculpting tones that stimulate a listener’s attention is extremely

musical in and of itself. Computer-music composition has such vast possibilities with

sound creation and processing. Some musicians are simply great at forming sounds

people enjoy hearing and that is the value of their musical background.

In summary, the first component of computer music composition is analysis of the

composers themselves. Their cultural identity and their musical backgrounds will both

have profound effects on the music they create. There is much to be gained from

reflecting upon a composer’s unique qualities. Merriam's article and Hugill's framework

suggest that by applying these traits, their music will be at an advantage.

Gathering a foundation of who the composer is as a musician is a starting point.

The next aspect of consideration for this model is addressing to whom the musician is

trying to appeal. Broadly stated, understanding an audience's tastes and expectations will


make a composer’s efforts easier. In an instructional article hosted by the University of

Maryland, writing strategies are presented to students. Though the context is rhetorical

appeal for essay writing, the themes are equally applicable to music writing. The claim

is,

“No matter what the writing project, you should plan to write to someone—that

is, you should target an audience for your writing assignment. Audience analysis

is crucial to understanding what should go into each piece of writing. You should

consider your audience’s needs.” They go onto say, “Analyzing your audience

will help you make the necessary decisions about what you will write”

(University of Maryland).

In the context of music, these topics to analyze are the audience's interest in

aspects like characterizing timbres, feel of rhythms, types of arrangements, and tempos.

In many cases, people create music to be consumed by an audience with similar cultural

identities. Being submersed in a particular cultural scene connects people who create the

music with people who consume it, and the relationship comes naturally. In other cases,

musicians are hired to compose for someone else's project, for instance a movie sound

track, a television commercial or an art installation. These cases have expectations that

may be different. To satisfy the specific audience's expectations, the writing principles

suggest that gauging stylistic adjustments that must be made and having versatility seem

beneficial for a successful product. The composer may simply compose for him (or her)

self. A successful product would fulfill the song's subjective purpose.


There are infinite possible 'purposes' for music that is created. Some are to satisfy

commercial interests, like record sales or approval by a paying client. Others regard

more personally rooted appeasement. The author conducted an internet survey to ask

computer-based musicians questions about their work. Eight questions were hosted by an

internet website where participants could submit their replies anonymously. In total there

were 91 entrees. One question of the survey was, “What do you want your listeners'

response to be when they hear your music?” The answers to this question had some

similar themes. The most common simple short answer was “dance.” Other prevalent

responses had to do with impressing listeners. The four responses below illustrate the

range of responses.

Response example #1 brings up emotional impact stating, “Enjoyment, interest

and primarily a sense of emotion. Like all forms of art, music can stir emotions,

memories and senses. If I can accomplish this, I have met my goal.”

Response example #2 addresses audience or contextual awareness stating, “It

depends on the project. For my musical compositions, I often want them to think my

music was clever. When I do sound effects for theatre, I want them blend in with the

play.”

Response example #3 was more focused on strength rather than type of impact

stating, “I'm more interested in the intensity of their response than in the actual response

itself. The more intense the response, whether positive or negative, the more the music

got to their soul.”


Then there was the fiscally conscious example #4 stating, “I want them to be so

impressed that they purchase my all my music and merchandise and share with all their

friends.”

The compositional framework suggests that the compositional process of

computer-based music begins with introspective analysis of the creator. The author's

cultural identity and the author's musical background both have significant effects on the

content that they create. The second part is acknowledging who the audience (or

intended audience) is, and their expectations needed to be met. The third part is the

purpose of the music; what is the intended response from the listener? With all of these

considerations in mind, the created music stands a better chance of being effective. This

approach applies to computer-based composers in particular, because modern tools create

vast sonic possibilities. Once the vision is created, realizing musical ideas is the next

step.

Compositional Rig

With solid ideas to embark on a project,

musicians go about acquiring the appropriate

equipment to satisfy creative needs. In this part of

the paper I will identify modern computer-based

music composition systems, and explain the inter-

workings of the components. There are many

elements of these systems to make them work

efficiently and some components are more inherently

Figure 1: Example of professional computer music rig. (Tingen, Smith's MyAudioTonic Studio is based around Pro Tools, but with a 32-‐channel Chandler summing mixer and a healthy selection of outboard)


musical than others. Together, the whole unit in its entirety is used to compose and

create music as an instrument. This instrument is at the center of this modern music rig is

a piece of everyday technology that many do not identify to be an instrument at all: a

computer. Initially, music recording had been done completely in an analog domain.

Computers first presented a way to digitize recordings by printing sounds to a digital

drive, rather than using a tape machine. Digital recording offered significant advantages,

but at the beginning there were many drawbacks regarding speed, track count restrictions,

and sonic characteristics. As computers become exponentially more powerful, these

downfalls continue to be less and less noticeable. Now most recording studios primarily

use computer systems, and many computer musicians have become self-reliant.

Within a computer system, certain components are vital for creating appealing

music. The most impactful unit of the computer, one that will dictate many musical

capabilities, is the processor. The most important chip in a computer is the central

processing unit, known as the CPU. Modern CPUs contain millions of transistors the size

of an average thumb's width. These highly complex chips will determine important

aspects of a computer music project such as, possible track count, amount of virtual

instruments, and number of sound processors on channels. The second most vital

component of the computer system for a music project is the hard drive. A hard drive is a

high-capacity, self-contained storage device containing a read-write mechanism. The

speed at which this disk can read and write the information will affect similar

performance issues as the processor. Hard drives store components of the project like

recorded audio, sample libraries for virtual instruments, and algorithms virtual

processors. A well-functioning, high-speed hard drive presents greater possibilities for


projects. These two computer components (CPU and hard drive) dictate how much

information a computer-music project can handle.

Inside the computer, all data is stored as binary code. Ways of interacting with

this data have changed over the years to become more intuitive. Right now, the mouse

and keyboard are the two major ways most people input information, and a monitoring

screen is used to view what is going on. Having a precise mouse and a large screen

would make this interaction more effective than a clumsy mouse and tiny screen.

While visual monitoring can be helpful with music projects, being able to hear the

sounds you are working with is vital. Speakers connect to computers, and through a

process known as digital-to-analog conversion, binary code gets changed to analog audio.

The process works in reverse as well. A glossary published by the popular music

technology website Sound on Sound provides a detailed technical definition of this

process. They define an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter as a, “circuit for converting

analogue waveforms into a series of equally spaced numerical values represented by

binary numbers” (Sound on Sound). Most computers have A/D converters built into

them, but the quality of this conversion is variable. Many computer-based musicians

invest in dedicated interface units to optimize the conversion quality and expand the

about of input and output channels. Plugged into the converter can be loudspeakers or

Figure 2 Example of professional industry standard converter. (AVID, HD I/O)


headphones. With this accomplished, musicians can make decisions from accurate

information when sculpting tones and mixing tracks; the sonic characteristic of

headphones and loudspeakers will inform adjustments. Now with the understanding of

information input and output of a computer and insight on how to make this basic

principle musical, let’s go into detail about tools used to do this.

MIDI controllers present many musical data entree possibilities for computer-

based systems. They are being made in many varieties; the most popular form is in

replication of a piano keyboard with white natural notes and black sharp/flat notes.

When a key is pressed, information is gathered that can be read by a virtual instrument as

pitch, duration, and velocity. Midi keyboards are being made with three varieties of feel

for the keys. There are weight hammer keys, which have a response most like a pianos

keys; semi-weighted, which have less key resistance and a springier feel; and finally

synth action, where the keys are light and return to resting position quickly for fast

playing. With these devices, a musician can have hands on experience interfacing with a

piano keyboard, while utilizing the benefits that computer technology offers. Keyboard

controllers can adapt to input information effectively for a wide variety of virtual

instruments, and controlling these instruments through a keyboard interface can help

make them sound and feel musical. Connected to a computer, they control virtual

instruments that can realistically sound like a drum set in a large church, a saxophone in

an intimate jazz club or a synthesizer from outer space. The keyboard controller is the

most widely used of all controllers, and it is thought of as the most versatile. However,

other controllers can present a more realistic feel for controlling virtual versions of non-

keyboard instruments.


Midi controllers are becoming very popular tools integrated into computer-based

systems, and they come in many varieties. In addition to midi keyboard controllers, other

prominent controllers are drum pads, wind controllers, midi converters on guitars and

bass guitars, drum sets, rotary effects knobs, sliding faders and more. All of these

convert musical actions to computer information. These controllers are similar to

keyboard controllers in regards to note value, duration and velocity; the only difference

with these alternative controllers is feel, which can have a significant impact on

playability and articulation. Playability and articulation will influence the performance

and create more realistic musical data input and provide comfort for musicians playing

the controllers with various skill sets. Drum pads create the feel of a drum machine and

trigger samples or a sound generator in the computer. Midi drum sets are arrangements

of pads that feel like drums, which when struck, trigger the same kind of information for

an electronic drum brain or a computers sound generator. With dynamics having so

much to do with groove, these controllers can save drummers a lot of time getting their

virtual drums sounding incredibly realistic. Rotary knobs and sliding faders can present

hands-on control of virtual parameters. These motions can make adjustments more

Figure 3: Midi controller with drum pads, semi-‐weighted piano keys, faders and rotary knobs (AKAI, MPK 49)


Figure 4: Large Gramatik concert with Denis controlling Ableton via a midi controller and electric guitar performance through the software amplifier and effects emulations of Guitar Rig. (Thissongissick, Gramatik Live Concert)

musical than a mouse. The commonality of all of these modern music devices is that they

are essentially useless without being connected to computers and music software. In

relation to the entire computer music system, these controllers are made for people to

play music, which will output computer data rather than sounds until virtual instruments

are introduced.

With computer-based systems, virtual

instruments are not the only ways to get

sounds into projects. In fact, many computer

musicians try to incorporate analog sounds

regularly to add a natural and realistic

element to their music. The two ways of

incorporating analog sounds in a project are

feeding microphones or direct injection signals

into the A/D converter. Computer musicians

often talk about what real instruments are in

their music, and how they incorporated them.

Electronic and hip-hop music producer Denis

Jasarevic, who goes by the alias Gramatik, is known for his urban sound, mixing old

samples and crisp programmed drums grooves. He provides insight to how he feeds

analog sounds into his computer and works them into his projects stating,

“I play keys and the bass lines and electric piano and then I have a couple friends

that are really good pianists, and FAQ plays guitar with me on stage. We


Figure 5: Survey results about analog instruments used by computer-‐based musicians

experiment a lot, sometimes I'd pick up the bass guitar and chop that up. I do

everything in Ableton” (Lost in Sound).

In a more extreme case, electronic musician and DJ known as Gaudi talks about

doing as much as he can with a project before the music enters the digital realm. He

reveals,

“I'm working with live musicians and creating sounds in almost every other way

imaginable other than by computer. Although the tracks are arranged on

computer, there's a lengthy process of recording sounds and manipulating them

(old school analogue style), before they even get near a small grey box!” (Better

Propaganda).

Although both of these musicians depict a lot going on outside of a computer

(especially Gaudi), everything in their work ends up being processed into binary code to

be worked on as a computer music project.

Microphones have been

primary tools used to record music

since the early 1900's, and today are

still very widely used, even in

computer-based pieces. Microphones

are used to capture a wide range of

sounds like acoustic instruments

(including the human voice,)

amplified instruments, and sounds that


may not be very conventionally musical. Many artists use them to add more timbral

variety and depth to their music. An important aspect of consideration with a

microphone is the space and air in between the source and the face of the microphone.

Complex variables such as the ambient noise levels and acoustic properties of the

recording space impact the recorded sound. A typical example of a microphone in a

computer-based music project could be a vocalist singing a short hook over the

breakdown section of an electronic-house song. An example less typical may be a

computer musician with a background in world percussion who adds layers of

instruments like congas or tablas to their synthesizer-heavy songs. People use

microphones for ambient recording and various found sounds in their projects as well. In

an interview with popular music magazine Electronic Musician internationally

recognized DJ and producer Deadmau5 talks about how he infuses his hit club songs with

natural soundscapes captured by microphones stating,

“What I do a lot, I take two SM57s, go up on my roof and just hit record. I've got

about a 20-minute long file of this that I've been using forever. You bring it down

to -18dB, to where I can just start to hear it” (Levine, 2011).

With the perfection of computer technology and the interesting inconsistencies of the

natural world, microphones fed into a computer create such vast possibility.

Similar to microphones, direct injection is another way that real world sounds are

brought into computer music projects. Direct injection or DI is an analog sound source

that is captured with some kind of pickup and fed electronically through a wire. Sound on

Sound's glossary defines it simply “where a signal is plugged directly into an audio chain


Figure 6: Screen shot of Guitar Rig illustrating amplifier and effects emulations. (Anderton, Native Instruments' Guitar Rig)

without the aid of a microphone.” Example of instruments that are directly injected into

computer systems are electric guitars and basses, analog synthesizers, acoustic electric

instruments (using piezo pickups) analog

drum machines, and turntables. Although

there are many virtual emulators of

instruments like bass guitars that can be

played with midi controllers, many

musicians believe that real instruments to

have a richer natural character, which will

better suit their project. A popular trend is

to blend acoustic instruments with

computer processing applications.

German company Native Instruments is

one of the current leaders in computer

synthesis and analog modeling software.

Their hit product called Guitar Rig is designed for (but not limited to) a signal plugged DI

into a computer, where the user can select emulated amplifiers, speaker cabinets,

microphones, and effects with an amazing amount of realism. The processing power of

what software can do to enhance audio has made direct injection very popular for many

instrumentalists using computers. In a more unconventional use of direct injection,

Canadian electronic Musician and Dj Akufen uses music concrete principles of found

sounds with drum programming. In an artist interview with the music software developer

Ableton, Akufen states,


“The new material I've been doing lately has way less 808 or 909 percussion.

Most of my new kick drums are found sounds often made out of different layered

radio noises and the Drumsynth 2.0 software. Same process for my hats and

snares.” He goes on to say, “I take sounds from everywhere now. The radio

became more of a trademark time after time. Now I'm using the television, the

telephone and some field recordings almost as much, but there is something with

the radio that fascinates me more. It's this organic flow” (Herrmann, 2012).

Again, the possibilities of what can be fed into computer music software are

virtually endless. Direct injection is a popular way to feed virtual processors and get

sounds integrated into computer music projects.

The central software applications for computer music sessions are called DAWs,

which stands for Digital Audio Workstations. While serving many functions, their main

role is to record audio and/or MIDI, provide windows for arrangement and mixing, as

well as to host plug-ins (which will later be covered in detail.) Most DAWs have

apparent relationships to analog recording system with their layouts and functionality,

exemplified with features like transport control. In arrangement views, audio and MIDI

tracks are stacked vertically, and are displayed on a linear timeline. A convenient feature

that many DAW arrangement windows have is a grid that corresponds with rhythmic

values of a project's tempo. Mix windows often look very similar to analog mixing

consoles. Each channel can host a mono or stereo track and have insert points, panning

knobs, auxiliary sends (pre or post fader) and volume faders. Modern systems are

incredibly flexible with track counts, routing possibilities and processing power.


Launching the DAW application is in most cases the initiation of the computer music

session.

Musical Elements

When approaching a new session, computer musicians have various ways to get

started. Some have saved templates and preselected sounds to work with, while others

start a project completely fresh and scrutinize creating each sound specifically for the

individual song. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages. Pre-selections can

help with speed and enhanced continuity, but sound individuality between projects may

make for interest and timbral diversity. Successful electronic music producer Lorin

Ashton who makes music under the alias Bassnectar, is an advocate of pre-organized

session templates and provides insight to his workflow stating in an interview,

“I really advocate simplicity. Pick your five kicks, pick your five snares, pick

whatever your sub-bass signal is gonna be. Pick a couple of atonal dives. Create

them in Massive or pull them out of a sample kit, put ’em in a drum rack, save

that drum rack. Save a channel strip. Pick one synth. Then just try to make a

couple songs, whether it’s Massive, [Tone 2’s] Gladiator, [Rob Papen’s]

SubBoomBass, or Albino, just pick one sampler. Pick just one folder of samples.

Then box yourself in with one sequencer and just work for a while” (Ware, 2012).

Ashton implies an ideology here that people get distracted with always creating

different sounds with synthesizers, drum samplers and the many other possible

components of computer music projects; all of these concerns can take focus away from

the compositional process and digging deeply into the music itself. Ashton suggests that


Figure 7: Bassnectar performing for a large festival crowd using 2 laptops, Ableton software and various midi controllers. (Thissongissick, Bassnectar Seth Drake Above and Beyond)

the technical aspects of timbre creation can easily divert too much attention away from

the musical aspects of composing melodies,

harmonies and rhythms. In contrast, some

computer-based musicians feel like timbre

creation and finding specific sounds that fit

especially well into particular songs is worth

the time and attention. In a Sound on Sound

article, the team who worked to make Kanye

West's number 1 UK and US hit “Stronger” in

2007 reveal the extensive technical processes of

creating the song. In sharp contrast to

Bassnectar's approach, this group emphasizes

the amount of detail that went into each small aspect of this specific song's sounds. One

particular excerpt showcases the amount of detail in the process:

“The beat was extremely hard to get. Getting the kicks right was probably the

biggest challenge in mixing this song. I think we ended up auditioning a dozen

different kick sounds in different combinations, with different EQ, plug-ins,

outboard, different filters and triggers, and so on” (Tingen, 2007).

While each kick sound this group auditioned, likely had fantastic timbral

characteristics (especially with the described processing of these kicks), the fact that they

did not stop short in finding the one they were most happy with speaks to the emphasis of

catering to each specific song's individual needs. Choosing to have an advanced starting


point or beginning from the ground and working upwards are two very different ways to

getting a project going and both have their advantages and shortcomings.

The music can then develop in a number of ways. Some computer musicians

program drums before anything else. Others fly in samples to spur creativity. Perhaps

the musician will realize a melody in their head. The possibilities are endless. A bass

line can follow a drumbeat; a chord progression can accompany a melody. The major

commonality for most successful computer music is an advanced understanding of

compositional principles. Arrangement to make a song progress in an interesting way,

harmonic structure to make pleasing sounding chord movements, rhythmic structures to

lock in tight grooves and other insights of effective composition are important in this

context. Many computer musicians believe that music theory training proves to be

beneficial. In an instructional text entitled Music Theory for Computer Musicians author

Michael Hewitt claims,

“Beneath all the enormously different styles of modern electronic music lie

certain fundamentals of the musical language that are exactly the same no matter

what kind of music you write. It is very important to acquire an understanding of

these fundamentals if you are to develop as a musician and music producer”

(Hewitt, 2008).

Music theory is an expansive topic that is a focus of all types of musicians' study.

Hewitt suggests that computer music significantly benefits from developed music

composition understanding and theory principles.


A component for most computer music projects is a mixing process done by the

musician, not a separate engineer. By doing this, many computer musicians consider

themselves to be producers, taking on composition, performance, arrangement and

engineering duties. Aspects of mixing include technical processes like applying fitting

amounts of compression and using equalizers to carve out space for everything to fit

nicely together, as well as creative elements like creating virtual spaces for the mix and

adding effects to make sounds more interesting. The mixing process can also interact

with the compositional process. Programming changes in processor parameters, called

automation, is a common way of heightening the interest

of music and making the songs progress smoothly

through timbral variation. For instance a widely used

tactic is to automate the frequency of a filter to make

sounds enter or exit a part of a song gracefully, build and

release tension, or achieve many other possibilities where

timbral change is a focus of the piece. In the survey

conducted by the author questioning computer

musicians, the results were a staggering indication of

how common self-mixed projects are. To the question

“Do you do all of the track mixing yourself?” 88 survey takers responded “yes,” and

only 3 responded “no.” This particular study shows that the overwhelming majority of

computer-based musicians do all of their own mixing. For close to a decade, mixing for

professional projects had been an advanced technical task taken on by outside engineers

and producers, only done in expensive studios. There is an arguable trade off with self-

Figure 8: Survey results about computer-‐based musicians doing their own mixing


mixing projects outside of a traditional studio. On one hand, these musicians do not have

to spend money to book studio time for mixing; there is much more flexibility with the

process; and ideally they can convey their songs sound exactly the way they envision.

On the other hand, there may be an element lost by not having an experienced engineer

providing a fresh opinion on a piece that someone brings into their studio and running

signals through high quality monitor speakers and processing gear. Regardless, self-

mixing is a very prominent trend with computer-based musicians and shows no indication

of lessening in popularity. Recent advancements have made the transition to digital

mixing more promising than ever.

Cutting Edge Technology

What computer technology is capable of now is spectacular. Two points, in

particular speak to the modern capabilities of computer music software and their future

direction: one, the likeable timbral characteristics imparted by analog hardware gear are

now being well replicated through digital applications; and two, some virtual processors

are capable of producing results that eclipse any analog device. Again, some of the

previous issues people have had with using computer-based systems versus analog

systems include slow speeds, low track counts and a cold sound. These problems

continue to be overcome. New computer processor chips are quick and can drive music

sessions with near zero latency, even when handling large amounts of information.

Processors called plugins open inside DAW applications and are made to take on the

roles of many different types of audio tools. They can be virtual instruments like synths,

and samplers, dynamic processors, or effect processors. In a Sound on Sound article


Figure 10: Eddie Kramer with Waves representative doing the comparison between hardware and software processors (Waves Audio Ltd., Eddie Kramer on Hardware Modeling and the V-‐Series)

entitled, “Plug-in Modeling,” Colin McDowell the CEO of plug-in design company

McDSP, claims,

“Anything created in hardware can be recreated in software.” He goes on to say,

“Writing software is a much more fluid engineering method and, by its very

nature, more flexible than a fixed hardware design. Furthermore, the notion that

‘classic’ analogue gear is capable of doing something that the average computer

cannot do is outdated. Limitations, if any, only exist in the imagination,

experience and creativity of the engineer(s) making the audio plug-in” (Lambert,

2010).

These plugins are now extremely powerful. Many

are being created to emulate the sonic characteristics of

analog hardware while others are making advancement

beyond previous limitations.

Plugins modeling hardware units are becoming very

wide spread. Eddie Kramer is an audio engineer and

producer who is credited in a massive amount of popular

recordings since the 1960's, including most of the Jimi

Hendrix and Led Zeppelin catalogs. In a demonstration

with a representative of the plug-in design company Waves

Audio, Kramer tests a plug-in emulation against the piece of

hardware that it is emulating. Kramer states in a video

interview,


Figure 11: Screenshot of Massive showing advanced enveloped modulations. (Native Instruments, A Modern Masterpiece)

“Once I heard the strict A/B comparison, I was very hard pressed to tell the

difference between the two. There was a slight difference but I feel with a few

more minutes worth of tweaking we would have got to the point where I wouldn't

be able to tell the difference, which was very encouraging and very impressive.”

Kramer concluded, “So what we've proven here is that it's very possible with just

a little bit of work to very accurately match an original piece of hardware”

(Waves Audio LTD.)

Plug-ins are emulating classic high-end EQs like Wave's emulation of a Neve

1073 (which Kramer tested), compressors like Universal Audio's emulation of their own

1176, or Lexicon's emulation of their reverb effects. However, not all high-end plug-ins

are emulating analog pieces.

Some plugin manufacturers are using computer technology to push new

boundaries. In the virtual processor category, plugin design company Isotope has a

popular mastering system called OZONE, where

users can enhance their audio using a maximizer,

equalizer, multi-band dynamic compressor, multi-

band stereo imager, multi-band harmonic exciter,

reverb and dithering tool, all in one plug-in. The

virtual instrument category has been significantly

affected by advancement in computer technology

as well. Cutting edge virtual instruments are generating tones that do not try to emulate

sounds that analog synths would produce, they are expanding into new sonic territories.


In 2007, Sound on Sound published an article reviewing a product that began a trend to

move virtual instruments into new realms. Author Simmon Price discusses the power of

Native Instrument's Massive synth in his review stating,

“Massive is a soft synth that is going after the big boys of the modern hardware

synth world, such as the Access Virus and Nord Lead families. Though capable of

it, it is not trying to be an analogue modeling synth in the way these synths are. It

has some of the flavor of the Virus, but its kinship is more with the modern-

sounding hybrid synths” (Price, 2007).

This is an indication that computer technology is pushing sonic capabilities to

new boundaries. These powerful virtual tools are very inexpensive in comparison to

analog.

Conclusion

Computer technology is greatly influencing the creation of new music. Before

approaching a computer workstation, the imaginative process of the musician plays an

important role in determining how the project will unfold. The musician should consider

who they are as a composer, who the intended audience is, and what they are hoping to

achieve by creating their music. Computer-based musicians configure production rigs to

compose and mix their projects. The computer is the central component, while

extensions provide the ability to monitor and input data. Tools popular to computer

music rigs are monitoring speakers, A/D converters, microphones and MIDI controllers.

Creating the music itself is approached and developed different ways, but having solid


compositional skills is a commonality of successful computer musicians. Virtual

instruments and processors available are extremely powerful and present many exciting

possibilities. Analog gear modeled in a digital format is extremely realistic and virtual

instruments are capable of producing tones that analog pieces cannot. Now is a fantastic

time for computer-based musicians - the future seems to hold room for considerable

positive development.


1: Merriam, A. P. (1964). The Anthropology of Music. Northwestern University Press

Nettl, B. (1975). in Radocy, R. and Boyle, J.D. (1979). Psychological Foundations of Musical Behaviour. Illinois, United States of America, C. C. Thomas.

Radocy, R. and Boyle, J.D. (1979). Psychological Foundations of Musical Behaviour. Illinois, United States of America, C. C. Thomas.

2: Hugill, A. (2012). The digital musician. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. 3: University of Maryland. (n.d.). Online guide to writing and research. Retrieved from http://www.umuc.edu/writingcenter/onlineguide/chapter2-04.cfm [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://lostinsound.org/2012/05/03/artist-‐spotlight-‐gramatik-‐interview-‐album-‐review/ [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://betterpropaganda.com/content.aspx?id=216 Levine, M. (2011, Feb 01). Deadmau5, mau% in the house. Retrieved from http://www.emusician.com/features-‐interviews/0777/deadmau5-‐-‐mau5-‐in-‐the-‐house/144679 Herrmann, T. (2012). Akufen: Electronic musician and dj. Retrieved from https://www.ableton.com/en/pages/artists/akufen/ Ware, T. (2012, October). Bassnectar: Finding simplicity in re-‐imagining, remixing, and remastering music. Retrieved from http://www.emusician.com/artists/0767/bassnectar/148981 Tingen, P. (2007, December). Secrets of the mix engineers: Manny marroquin. Retrieved from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec07/articles/insidetrack_1207.htm Hewitt, M. (2008). Music theory for computer musicians. CENGAGE Learning. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug10/articles/modelling-plugins.htm


Lambert, M. (2010, August). Have you ever wondered exactly what goes on when classic hardware is recreated in plug-‐in form? here’s the full story from some of the industry’s biggest names.. Retrieved from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug10/articles/modelling-‐plugins.htm

Waves Audio Ltd. Eddie Kramer on Hardware Modeling and the V-‐Series [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=11333krammer

Price, S. (2007, February). Native instruments massive: Software synth. Retrieved from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/articles/nimassive.htm

Image Cited:

Tingen, P. (Photographer). (2009, November ). Smith's MyAudioTonic Studio is based around Pro Tools, but with a 32-channel Chandler summing mixer and a healthy selection of outboard [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov09/articles/it_1109.htm

(2010, August 20). HD I/O [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http-//alumni.sae.edu/de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avid-ProTools-HD-IO.jpg

MPK 49 [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.akaipro.com/mpk49

Gramatik Live Concert [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http-//thissongissick.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Gramatik-Live-Concert.jpg

Anderton, C. (Photographer). (2010, April 19). Native Instruments' Guitar Rig [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Technique-Articles/Guitar-Re-Amping-Basics/ba-p/34631185

Bassnectar Seth Drake Above and Beyond [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://thissongissick.com/blog/2011/bassnectar-seth-drake-above-beyond/


Waves Audio Ltd. (Photographer). Eddie Kramer on Hardware Modeling and the V-Series [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=11333

Native Instruments. (Photographer). A Modern Masterpiece [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from http://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/synths-

Computer technology in modern music - CORE

Documents